The danger in toy guns

13 year old Andrew Lopez loved music. He had a good ear, the gift of rhythm and he played trumpet in the school band.

It was a warm late summer Santa Rosa, California evening and Andy was returning a friend’s toy gun that had been left at his house. Andy’s life had a sound track and apparently he was listening to it through his “ear buds” as he crossed the empty lot between houses. Sadly this set of circumstances became part of a twisted alchemy that ultimately claimed the young boy’s life.

At this same moment a 24 year veteran of the Santa Rosa Police Force (name being withheld at this time) and a trainee were passing the vacant lot in their patrol car when they saw a male figure in a “hoodie” walking with what appeared to be an assault weapon. The police officers stop their vehicle, opened the vehicle doors for cover and with weapons draw told the male figure to drop the gun.

Andrew must have heard something, but it could not have been clear over the sounds that filled his ear buds. He turned to see what was going on, and it was all over in a flash. He was gone. Blown away forever.

The 24 year veteran had fired 8 shots. Two of the shots that hit the young boy were fatal. He was dead before he the ground. Police reports indicate that no more than 10 seconds had elapsed between the time the police saw the hooded figure and the 13 year old was shot and killed. The FBI is investigating.

This is only the latest of several instances where the flood of guns in our country has caused the kind of alarm in law enforcement that even owning replica toy guns has lead to the most tragic of consequences. Yet they are still on the market. I remember playing with toy guns when I was a kid but they did not look particularly real and kids were not being shot by police or civilians because we had them. Times have certainly changed and the presence of so many guns in our society has not made it better. In fact the number of children and teens who die from gunshot wounds has risen almost 60 percent in the last decade, according to a new report. The study by two doctors looked at data from 1997 to 2009, and found the number of those hospitalized with gunshot wounds rose from 4,270 to 7,730, while the number of those that then died from them climbed from 317 to 503. *

Now there are even real guns for kids that are painted in bright colors with cartoon character names and an aw-shucks, happy-go-lucky, Mayberry advertising campaign . In spite of the fact that almost everyday we read about children being shot in gun accidents all over the country there are some who still have the chutzpah to say we need even more guns. Double down in other words.

Too many guns = too much gun violence = too much paranoia = more gun sales = more deaths = more paranoia = more gun sales. That unending vicious cycle of death and profit must end. Clearly this is true in both the gun industry and the toy gun industry.

See research below. This just in. people are dying (and being born) every minute of every day. Corporations are profiting from most of the items that are the cause of deaths and injuries, but, Lawrence, its got more to do with behavior that with the items that cause death and injury. I just picked a few here at random. There are hundreds of others. The guns that you hate sooo much are just one of many causes of death, accidental and intentional. So please get off the profit thing. It’s just that you abhor anything corporate, isn’t it? Now tell me that none of these things are made for the purpose of killing. Do you think that matters to the families of the victims???

“Prescription overdoses are epidemic in the U.S.”, says Dr. Thomas Frieden, director of the CDC. In 2008, the most recent year for which there are statistics, there were 20,044 overdose deaths from prescription drugs.

With the exception of 2010 — the only year in a five-year span which recorded a decline — the number of household poisonings has risen sharply, causing the ministry to step up efforts to reduce the incidence.
The most vulnerable are those under five years old, who accounted for 81 per cent (or 486) of the total 602 accidental poisonings for 2010.
Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/More-

Texting while driving has become a greater hazard than drinking and driving among teenagers who openly acknowledge sending and reading text messages while behind the wheel of a moving vehicle.

The number of teens who are dying or being injured as a result of texting while driving has skyrocketed as mobile device technology has advanced. Researchers at Cohen Children’s Medical Center in New Hyde Park estimate more than 3,000 annual teen deaths nationwide from texting and 300,000 injuries.

Ok so should the cellphone Co. or the Car Co. be held liable? The drug Co.? How about if someone commits suicide after viewing one of your photos?

BTW, drugs, guns and autos have lots of government controls, including training, permits, etc. and people die anyway, so how are more controls going to change things, when there are 300,000,000 out there already?

You speak of existing ultra liberal laws allowing for there to be a flood of guns. There already is a flood of guns. So when you say you want to change that, you aren’t a gun grabber?

I think you’re just loving the whole control thing that you get from presiding over the blog.

Pardon me for saying John Q, but you come at this question butt backward. Let me explain. Cellphones, car companies, drug companies all fall under some form of consumer oversight. They are legally liable for their irresponsibility. Guns are not.

Therefore your question should be phrased, “why do guns get a free ride?” I assure you I am not in favor of this unique protection for gun makers and I protest it on this blog. That will continue.

A flood requires a source. I want to slow the flood of guns at the source, before they get into society. The gun makers and sellers have made a fortune misrepresenting what gun control means. That is not enough for them. They want to sell more and more and more guns. Trying to make certain that all sales of these dangerous products are legal and that the law is working is not gun grabbing. It is very common sense. Seeing a gun as a holy object is not common sense in the least.

Yes. I would like to see illegal guns removed from our society. I believe that process supports legal gun owners and the second amendment.

There. Now you don’t have to try to put words in my mouth or explain my motivation. I have told you and you were totally off the mark anyway.

john q
I agree that there are many ways that people meet their demise every day and we need to continue to devote our efforts to all of these problems. But we cannot ignore the fact that with “intentional” death, or homicide, the method of choice is clearly a firearm. Now over 70% of the time. In everyone of the situations you describe, public policy is constantly be used to address situations which can lead to accidental death. When it comes to gun regulations, we are unable to even allow public policy decisions to prevent the sale of guns to criminals, a practice that has continued for decades.

As for your comments regarding Lawrence. I do not agree with everything he writes, but I would not begin to question his motives. Many on this blog that support additional gun regulation in any form have remained faithful to their beliefs due to some connection or another with gun violence, and are driven by a strong sense of empathy. To some the victims of gun violence are numbers, to others they are loved ones.

Guys should like the real ones, we watched them growing up on television from cartoons to actual actors (many of whom are opposed to gun ownership but that’s a different conversation) using them to save innocents from villains, dictators, or every day psychotic criminals. I’m with you on this one Lawrence, the kid shouldn’t have had the “toy” gun, but if he’s 13 I think the parents and the manufacturer should share responsibility for this one. The kid also shouldn’t be walking around with a toy that he removed the only safety feature on but he’s 13 and I don’t blame him for that. The manufacturer shouldn’t have produced such a real looking replica for a toy, and the parents shouldn’t have allowed him to own it.

I agree. Both sides share some responsibility. The consumer and the industry – just as with real guns. That is why I wrote the piece. It is my way of trying to put the word out that guns are not toys. Even when they are toys.

I also agree. The world has changed quite a bit since I played ‘Army’, or cowboys and Indians with cap guns, and toy rifles. We played out scenes from’The Rifle Man’. Paw was a good guy, and he protected his ranch from the bad guys. We formed pretend posses. Those innocent days are over.

I took a lot of heat when I mentioned on this blog that I did not purchase toy guns for my children. That was seen as ‘gun phobic’, or that I was teaching my children to fear guns. None of that is/was true. I was doing my job as a parent. They did play paint ball on occasion, and they did have squirt guns. I am not a fanatic.

I think it is completely irresponsible for a parent to purchase a REAL gun for their child, (Jeff G boasted, and wrote an article about purchasing his three-year-old a rifle), and it is a failure as a parent to buy realistic looking guns in our current situation of 300,000,000 guns in circulation. You are placing a child in danger.

Amazon said the 3 AAA batteries go into the “clip” Where is Julie’s outrage over the term clip? That will be the focus of some.

And boy oh boy, for the life of me, I cannot understand the rationale for selling these fake guns, or the reason for purchasing them.

Ehhhh, I don’t think the guns I’ve seen in the last few years at box stores are anything but toys. Most are green and orange and look like 50’s ray guns, the gun you have pictured I’m shocked was made and marketed as a toy. Do you know the name of the maker, and name of the “toy”?

“This is only the latest of several instances where the flood of guns in our country has caused the kind of alarm in law enforcement”. Come on. This happened many years ago at a school when a police officer shot a teenager with a fake gun. And has happened several times since. This is nothing new and is not caused by alarm in law enforcement due to a “flood of guns”. You made better arguments when you stuck with facts and common sense.

The facts are that we have more guns in America than ever. It is not unreasonable to make a connection that law enforcement would be more vigilant, especially when 44 of the 48 officers killed last year the weapon was a gun. Most law enforcement officers are aware that new gun sales spiked in recent years, and little has been done across the nation to prevent gun sales to criminals. I think common sense would suggest that police in America realize their jobs are more dangerous with the transfer of guns into the hands of prohibited persons that occurs everyday.

The death of children due to toy guns should raise attention. It highlights a shift in our culture. It is also a concern that parents purchase REAL weapons for very young children. Is that a way to indoctrinate them early? So, we lose some of the kids when they accidentally shoot themselves, or other children. We can make more kids.

Guns are not a problem, according to Michael. Or was it Robert? Can’t keep track of them….same odd tactic. Swoop in for a day or two, unload a boatload of propaganda, and then vanish. Robert was the blogger who spent two days rewriting history, while challenging LUTF. He then made an appearance after Gabby Giffords visit to Saratoga.

Now we have Michael. Anyone can find his talking points by going to an NRA site.

Look, the problem isn’t guns, and this shouldn’t even be a debate about real guns. The fact of the matter, is that this kid had what appeared to be an assault rifle… yet it wasn’t. Then, when he turned around, officers plugged him many more times than necessary. All because he was carrying a toy gun. So what should people do? Well, according to you, make it a much larger issue than it actually is.

Here are the things to think about:

-This was a toy gun… did it have a colored end? Because most have an orange tip to ensure people can identify them as a toy. This ‘brightly colored toy gun’ nonsense is sickening. Kids were able to play with realistic looking toy guns with no problem, and it wasn’t even that long ago.

-Was the boy using this against the officers in a threatening manner? If so, then it’s reasonable for the cops to have reacted to protect their lives. If not… then why did they plug the kid so many times?

I know my words are going to fall on deaf ears here, but fact of the matter is that guns aren’t a problem. You can restrict and regulate and cut back the amount of guns produced all you want… won’t change a thing. Criminals in the news are often using a gun that has been ‘borrowed’ or stolen, and have not acquired the proper training or license to use said weapons. Your average gun owner knows how to use their weapons responsibly, and keeps them locked up so they can’t be accessed by anyone else. The criminals are going to find a way to do what they want to do, with WHAT they want to do it with, no matter what. It’s how it’s always been, and always will be.

This knee-jerk mentality is exactly what’s wrong with our watered down society.

My blog article certainly fell on your deaf ears as questions you are asking in your comment are answered in the text.

The data (link also in article) is clear that the trend of young people being shot or accidentally shooting others is climbing. A “watered down society” cowers to a powerful and wealthy gun lobby that blocks every attempt to legislatively regulate their liabilities. On the other hand a sturdy society is one that cares for it’s children enough that when it becomes aware of the ghastly numbers of dead in this newly released data they see it as intolerable. These people stand for change. They stand for a peaceful, safe society over profit.

Snicker Doodle – If these were “common sense gun laws” then they would of been passed years ago. There is no easy solution when it comes to the rights of gun owners and the rights of Americans. There is a middle ground, but that will never be reached by our government (as we all saw with the shutdown).

Funny thing, is that data only identifies trends. Data does nothing to identify the reason behind them.

Are guns really the reason why young people are being shot, intentionally or accidentally? Of course not. Blame the dummies who decide that keeping a gun under their bed while hiding the ammo box in their closet is a good idea. The problem there is ACCESS.

And if you want to know why the ‘big’ shootings are happening more and more… well, you can blame the media for that. Everyone in the country turns their eye to the shooter’s actions, their name gets exposed… and in their final moments they at least know they’ll be remembered for SOMEthing.

This situation does indeed have an association to real guns. The fact that they have permeated our culture to such an extent is obviously the reason that this tragedy could even occur. A 13 year old carrying a toy that is so realistic is indicative of the problem. I had plenty of toy guns growing up, but by the time I was 13 I had long given up playing with toys, and that was a much different time and place. Unfortunately for this young man, the moment he turned around with what was perceived to be a real weapon, LE had to react. No other action was required on the boy’s part for a threat to have occurred. More than 90% of the time when LEOs are killed, it is with a firearm, a fact not lost on those who perform the job.

lAWRENCE THIS IS IN RESPONSE TO YOUR SHUTDOWN COMMENT: I would have agreed that the republicans would suffer over the shutdown, but not anymore. Today the focus is on national healthcare, why certain people (5% according to NPR) are receiving notices that they will indeed be unable to keep their healthcare plan. The exceptions being if they had it sometime in 2010 or before they would be grandfathered….like my pre ban magazines I guess we were all lied to about keeping things previously bought ( I know one is a federal thing, and the mags were a state issue). The next issue for the democrats is actually launching the healthcare website in any sort of productive fashion. When MSNBC is attacking the website you know you have a problem.
-The other major issue is govt spying, Angela Merkl isn’t a fan of having her personal cellphone bugged, and obamas vague answers regarding tapping foreign dignitaries phones should alarm all. These are concerns brought up by left wing media outlets, not just fox news or the WSJ. Our presidents interview on ABC latino shows his inability to logically explain our governments actions in this regard. He could try to argue a necessity, or say it’s merely the times, but hes smarter then that. Unfortunately I don’t think he was smart enough to get ahead of the issue, and he obviously didn’t go through a pro con process and seems to have simply let it happen.

Ah yes, death panels 2. It is not going to fly. Those people had sub par policies are were being ripped off. When it all comes out they will be happier as well.

The piercing drum beat of over-the-top negativity is only showing how desperate the far right really is. People need health care. People want immigration reform. People want jobs. People want the economy to work smoothly. They are tired of fake shut down / show down and an out of control weapons industry shirking all responsibility for the climbing body count from the use their products.

The propaganda will flow heavy and lies will continue beyond the death panel. In the end it will not matter. People are sick of gun lobby politicians only blocking good legislation and doing nothing else.

“Take the gun out the equation and it is pretty hard to shoot someone whether you are looking for attention or not.”

The logic here is flawless. I guess we better outlaw nail guns so nobody has an accident. While we’re at it, let’s ban knives so nobody can cut their finger off while chopping vegetables, or use them to inflict harm on others. Why stop there? You COULD smash your thumb by using a hammer, so off they go, too!

People do what they do for a variety of reasons… all of which pointing to them breaking the law. You can remove guns, but then they’ll use something else. If someone really wants to inflict harm on someone, they’re going to do it regardless of the tools at their disposal.

‘Take away (bad item) and problems go away’ isn’t reality. ‘Take away (bad item), and something else will take its place, or at the very least it will thrive on the black market’.

Proabition didn’t work so well, did it? People resorted to making their own booze and selling it at high prices. Weapons are no different. Some are skilled enough to make guns, and if they’re not, there’s other things they can make at home. All it really takes is someone with a hot enough flame and a hammer to craft their own weapons…

30 American people will die from gunfire today. Please show me one who was murdered by a nail gun.

What is it with you guys. You want to compare guns to anything else – cars, beer, in this case nail guns. In response I will say for the umpteenth time – if you would like the same level of law and regulation on guns as on nail guns or cars or beer – I am all for it. Nail gun manufacturers can be held liable for their products. Gun makers can not. They get a free ride.

No one is talking here about prohibition of guns except for the paranoid propaganda that spews endlessly from the gun lobby. Gun controls are not prohibition and more than control of alcohol is prohibition. Think of that as you have your beer tonight.

Michael wrote:
“Was the boy using this against the officers in a threatening manner? If so, then it’s reasonable for the cops to have reacted to protect their lives. If not… then why did they plug the kid so many times?”

Why don’t you show some respect for an innocent 13 year-old boy, shot and killed by LE. The kid was ‘plugged’. Disgusting, barbaric terminology.

The kid’s ears were ‘plugged’. He did not drop the weapon (toy) and I do not blame LE for their actions. I blame YOU Michael. I blame all of the Michaels out there, for refusing to see what is right in front of your noses. You display a complete lack of empathy, and rationalize ANYTHING as long as it benefits you, and the wealth of the weapons industry.

Like Lawrence said, if you take the gun out of the equation, it’s kind of hard to shoot someone. At least make it harder for criminals, children and mentally ill to get their hands on them. Anyone who fights against common sense laws, in my opinion, has a lack of common sense. We should have laws in place that require mandatory background checks, requires you to keep your weapons away from children, keep them out of the hands of the criminally insane, restricts the capacity which enables one to shoot multiple people at once. Makes perfect common sense to me.

Snickerdoodle: if you take the gun out of the equation it is hard to shoot someone. Words like that of course don’t need to be written, but several people enjoy stating undeniable facts like that that are known to all. The problem is sometimes people need to shoot other people in defense, sometimes those people don’t have access to a firearm. You could have written, take the gun out of the equation, and gun season probably won’t yield any dead deer. Take the gun out of the situation and ammunition sales will plummet. Take the gun out of the situation and our soldiers won’t be able to fight the enemy. Take the gun out of the situation and the 88 year old women in chicago can’t defend herself against a younger stronger man. Take the gun out of the situation and the cop won’t be able to stop the 2 guys attacking the store owner with bats….. Really? Why not run the infinite examples until you are exhausted enough to stop saying such ridiculous filler. It’s a two way street, in this case if the cop didn’t have his gun he wouldn’t have shot the kid. If the kid didn’t have the toy rifle the cop wouldn’t have used his gun. The situation was a worst case scenario for all present parties i’m sure, as well as their families.

“Take the gun out of the situation and ammunition sales will plummet.”

That is the gun industry motive right there. Profit. All the rest is window dressing. Increased gun sales is the motive to keep the propaganda pot on the high flame.

That includes making absurd statements that gun control takes the guns from police. The real issue is the weapons industry’s hideous clammer for profit at any cost – even at the cost of the escalating number of shootings of children. That is at the very heart of it. That is their ultimate motive. That is what we are fighting.

Mr. White:
I think one problem is that CHILDREN are gaining access to firearms. They are taking them to school to settle scores, that normally would have been at worst, a fight in the schoolyard. A black eye, a bloody nose. No one SHOT. “Those were the days my friend, I’d thought they’d never end.” They ended.

We are tripping over 300,000,000 firearms. They are everywhere.

I do have a limit to my patience. If I hear one more NRA jerk say ‘knee-jerk’, I’ll vomit. This mess has been a long time in the making. And if ANYTHING is considered to stop it, they take out their BIG guns. Cash.

@chris w-taking guns out of the equation for situations like the ones I mentioned and having laws regarding taking safety measures around children makes sense. I didn’t say remove all guns so grandma can’t defend herself.

You guys are cracking me up. Let me just put a few things straight here:

-I do not own a gun, and I’m certainly not a member of the NRA.

-I affiliate myself with NO parties. I think our two party system is borderline nuts.

What this means is that the assumption that my arguments somehow benefits me is 100% false. What I AM against however, is a lack of common sense.

Criminals already obtain their weapons illegally, and will continue to do so. Gun regulations affect who then? Oh yeah, the people who are responsible enough to take their gun safety courses and actually register their firearms and lock them up. You’re limiting THEIR right to use a weapon… the criminals will continue to do what they do and won’t be hindered by this.

You want to spout statistics? Stastically speaking, crime rates are actually higher in areas where gun control laws are the most strict. I don’t see that mentioned anywhere though :shrugs:

And by the way, I did not blame the victim… nor the officer. I merely asked questions… What happened here? Was the kid using the toy in a threatening manner, or was the officer out of line? We don’t know the answer to that, yet you’re all making assumptions here.

People will still be raped in our country today. Should we cave in and get rid of the laws against rape? Law can never stop all crime but does that mean we get rid of the laws and just allow our society to fall into chaos? In fact guns are the most dangerous product in our culture yet they are the most under regulated. Guns do not even fall under consumer laws. Common sense gun controls do not restrict not do they hamper the law abiding gun owner. In fact almost all that I know are actually in favor of most of the components of the SAFE Act and feel it strengthens the 2nd amendment. I agree.

As for your conjecture that gun crimes are higher in one area than another – well that red herring has already been cooked long ago. The lack of a strong national standard for gun rules, laws and controls has set up a patch work of areas were gun sales are sold in a lax manner. These guns are then sold on the black market for much higher prices in areas were guns are restricted. Common sense would dictate a consistent set of rules so that this situation could be better controlled yet people like you want more unregulated or under regulated gun sales. That is either totally crazy or someone is making some money on the gun sales and could not care less where they end up.

Now, go back over your question about the young boy with the toy gun. You asked if he was using it in a “threatening manner.” Really. A 13 year old kid? This was a tragic accident that was caused by a toy that looks like an assault weapon. Maybe you do not think that gun and toy manufacturers need to show some responsibility but I sure do.

Finally if you would like the same level of regulation on guns that is currently on alcohol I agree with you.

By the way, I have to agree that the wording used by Lawrence makes it seem like this is an epidemic when it really isn’t. Saying anything that can act as a euphamism for ‘happens all the time’ is misleading. 36,000 people die each year from influenza related deaths. And yet, 36,000 is actually a small number, statistically speaking. When you talk to someone about the common cold or flu, death is pretty much the last thing we think about. Yet this sad news pops up and is reported ad neausea by the media, and all of a sudden it’s an ‘epidemic’.

Lawrence, you’ve only proven that you’re not capable of looking at the ‘big picture’. You’ve leeched onto your own set of ideals and you’re just unwilling to see reason or budge from your narrow-minded assumptions.

You can catch the flu but no one shoots the flu into 20 shcool children who die in pools of blood in their own classroom. When someone is shot your flu statistics are revealed to be vividly absurd.

This is not about the flu. This is about a mega industry creating gun products that are used to kill thousands of our fellow citizens while making a huge profit for themselves doing it. They pump out the lies and the propaganda while they are shielded form any liability or responsibility by laws passed by the gun lobby in congress. Then you come here talking about a flu virus and the way I use certain words. The sad fact is that more Americans have died from gunfire in America since 1968 than our troops have been killed in all of the wars that ever fought as a country all the way back to the revolution. That is what this blog is about. Not the flu.

After pondering your comments it is clear there will never be enough innocent blood spilled by gunfire to make you stand up and do something about it. However I passed that point long ago.

“People will still be raped in our country today. Should we cave in and get rid of the laws against rape? Law can never stop all crime but does that mean we get rid of the laws and just allow our society to fall into chaos?”

What is your point with this lame argument?
There are already laws that say “guns” cannot be used in crimes and laws that make murder illegal.

“The lack of a strong national standard for gun rules, laws and controls has set up a patch work of areas were gun sales are sold in a lax manner. These guns are then sold on the black market for much higher prices in areas were guns are restricted.”

Restrict guns more than they already are, or take them out of the equation completely (which like it or not, is ppretty much what you’ve said you’d prefer), and that will only help black market sales grow. Hopefully, I shouldn’t have to explain the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of that, because the reasoning is evident.

“…yet people like you want more unregulated or under regulated gun sales. That is either totally crazy or someone is making some money on the gun sales and could not care less where they end up.”

First of all, you’re making yet ANOTHER assumption on me. I don’t want guns to be ‘unregulated’ or ‘under regulated’. I think the regulation we have is fine… you want to know why political figure heads want you to believe that there’s not enough regulation? Because they want to create unnecessary legislation to pad their resumes. When they run for a higher office, they can point to their accomplishments and say, “Look what I did!” This is exactly what Bloomberg wanted to push to ban large soft drinks, trans fats and sugar… which I know is a different situation entirely but the reason behind the ‘why’ is pretty much the same.

“You can catch the flu but no one shoots the flu into 20 shcool children who die in pools of blood in their own classroom. When someone is shot your flu statistics are revealed to be vividly absurd.”

People get ill and still decide to go to school, go to work, and come in contact with people all day. Some of these people may even decide they don’t care to wash their hands or even cover their mouths when they cough and sneeze. I know this may sound trivial to you, but my point is this:

Police shooting a kid because of a toy weapon doesn’t happen ‘all the time’. It, unfortunately, happens on occasion, but it seems prevalent because of all the media coverage each situation receive after it happens. Causes of death that happen in far greater numbers are deemed insignificant because the ‘why’ may not be as insidious, and aren’t held under a spotlight. But hey… remember when that swine flu was all the rage? That was a HUGE news story… because the media grabbed hold of it. THAT was an ‘epidemic’… even though every year scientists basically have to pick and choose which strains are going to require treating or not… and sometimes they get it right, and sometimes they get it wrong. Media coverage is what makes or breaks something in the eyes of the public, which is sad.

“This is about a mega industry creating gun products that are used to kill thousands of our fellow citizens while making a huge profit for themselves doing it.”

You’re failing to seperate two completely different issues here. This is about a TOY GUN, and the ramification of transforming said toy in order to look more realistic.

“They pump out the lies and the propaganda while they are shielded form any liability or responsibility by laws passed by the gun lobby in congress.”

Well, these companies are making firewarms for hunting and for protection. I don’t think they’re creating firearms in order to facilitate the harm of other human beings in cases that aren’t for self-preservation. The only lies and propaganda being spewed is anything otherwise. These are not inherently evil companies, just as Coke and Pepsi aren’t evil companies, even though their soft drinks can cause diabetes and death if consumed to an unhealthy degree.

“After pondering your comments it is clear there will never be enough innocent blood spilled by gunfire to make you stand up and do something about it.”

I’m not trying to downplay innocent blood that’s spilled. Your ‘passion’ here is only trying to make it seem that way.

You’re also trying to argue that this shooting was nonsense because the boy was 13 years old and couldn’t POSSIBLY have looked threatening with a toy gun that was made to LOOK real… which was only a direct result of the boy REMOVING THE ORANGE CAP FROM THE END OF THE TOY. If the kid spun around and the nozzle of that toy gun was pointed at the officers, then yes, an officer has to make a judgement call to protect themselves. Sometimes people make bad decisions, and as innocent as this child’s intentions may have been, he was apparently ignorant to the fact that it’s not a good to idea to walk around with a toy gun in public, especially after doing everything in his power to ensure it didn’t look like a toy at all.

Why do you keep insisting that I want there to be less regulation? I’m saying that we don’t need MORE regulation, not that we need none/less.

I’m also saying that MORE regulation will make no difference. Responsible gun owners are already responsible. Irresponsible gun owners obviously don’t care enough to follow the regulations in place, and likely won’t care any more if the regulations change.

Well then I can see how you have come to your own conclusions – You’re drawing the correlating lines you WANT to draw. I have repeatedly stated that I’m not for less of this or less of that. I am merely saying we don’t need politicians wasting our tax dollars to make more specific regulations for regulations we already have in place. We have gun control… people just want more of it, and I just think it’s unnecessary.

I also believe we didn’t need specific cell phone in car regulations… we already have regulations for unsafe driving. You would think that looking at your phone and taking yoru eyes off the road would have been a part of that, but noooo… Politicians have to pad those resumes…

Start reading what I’m actually saying, and not what you ‘think’ I’m saying.

The meaning in your words is unambiguous. You defend the ability of the industry to churn profit over the rights of our fellow citizens to live without fear of being shot. That is what the debate is all about and it is clear where you stand.

And yeah, thanks for blaming me for murders and whatnot just because I’m sharing my opinions. Talk about hyperbolic idiocy as it’s very finest.

I won’t be responding to you after this Tony, because you’ve clearly made better friends with your ‘jump to conclusions’ mat.

I acknowledge there is a gun problem, but I do not acknowledge the problem are the guns themselves. It’s the people – Not educating well enough, not having enough respect for weapons that can take their lives and the lives of others, and the people who don’t store their weapons properly.

I’m sure there are plenty of people out there who were touched by gun violence, but instead of actually identifying what the problems are, you’re taking your hatred/fear out on the tool and not the responsible parties. You take things away from people, and they’re going to seek out what they want illegally anyway. You also don’t teach anyone ANYthing about GAINING that respect for a deadly weapon, because you’ve removed the obstacles of education responsibility.

People die in car accidents, and many of us have probably been touched by victims in said accidents. We don’t ban cars as a result.

Plenty of people we may know probably died of heart problems, but we don’t hit the streets wanting to ban fatty food (Bloomberg the exception here).

That’s so kind of you to decide for other people what coverage is best for them. It’s also great you are able to overlook our presidents promise that people would be able to keep their current plan.
-The negativity is coming from the left and right, but I suspect you are going to argue this like you do guns. It doesn’t really matter who the players are, or what the narrative is, you see your imaginary end goal and you will try to get there regardless of reality. NPR, MSNBC, CNN (anderson cooper….not a right winger) have all been challenging the health care law now that we know what we know about it!
-I didn’t mention death panels anywhere, we could have the conversation about end of life care and what is and is not reasonable, but I NEVER brought up death panels or end of life care. You seem to be chomping at the bit about that point, but it wasn’t part of the conversation. The point that I made that you blew right past was that the govt shutdown may not be the major issue with the american public you think it is, or is going to be when they hit the voting booths.

Yes. When people are being robbed by companies who allow them to simply die from lack of care it is good to know that our government will stop them from doing it.

It is the media’s job to question and the answers they are getting are not even close to the line of propaganda you are furthering here. In fact anyone who is familiar with contemporary American history is fully aware that every health care measure and even Social Security got off to a bumpy start. The death panel crew just wants the insurance companies to continue to profit at the same greedy level as the gun industry and they do not care who gets hurt by it.

That brings up back full circle.

This is not a blog about health care or death panels. It is a blog about guns. Let’s get back on point.

Lawrence, you never stated in the article but you did in your comments, there was an orange cap on the toy to distinguish it from a real firearm when the individual purchased it, but is was removed? So the government asked toy manufacturers to put distinguishing features on toy guns to separate them from real guns. the user of the toy gun, removed the safety feature and now you want the toy manufacturer to be liable?

It is a very sad story, when are we as a society going to ask people to take responsibility for their actions, if I choose to text message my wife when driving home from work later today and I get into a fatal accident, should my wife sue Verizon, Motorola or BMW? or all three for my death?

Yes. They should be liable. No company should be able to create exact toy replicas of assault weapons for children. You are welcome to disagree with me but in my opinion you will look foolish doing it.

I will say this again – if you would like the same level of law and regulation on Remington and Glock as you do on Verizon and BMW – I am all for it.

I guess the moral of the story that Lawrence White is trying to tell is:

-Toy companies should stop manufacturing realistic looking weapon toys period. Those Freddy gloves you’ll get for Halloween? The blades should be multicolored, sort of like a rainbow. That Jason machete? Make it available in various neon shades.

The insanity in these arguments is baffling.

Toy company does what they need to in order to identify their product as a toy… the consumer decides to remove that identifier. Bad things happen… so blame the company that did what they were supposed to?

One glance at the photo I provided in the blog article and the links I have provided to the web pages selling these products clearly shows that they are replicas. They are not make to “look like toys.”

Michael Zupans argument isn’t utter nonsense. I don’t agree with his assessment that the company is without blame, but his point is pretty straight forward, logically speaking. The idea the parents let him have the toy, and walk around the streets with it is another point that should be mentioned.
-Many kids and adults play a game called airsoft, they basically shoot rubber bb’s at eachother and wear safety glasses to prevent injury. If he were carrying an airsoft gun after a day of playing airsoft it would make a little more sense, sort of, that he would have it openly in his possession in public….sort of. As Tony B pointed out the kid was 13, he didn’t know better apparently and i’m not sure the average 13 year old should have even known better. I know i’m repeating but I think the kids parents (if they knew he was carrying the thing around) and the toy company have to share responsibility on this one.

The orange tip is a bright color so that when, oh, an officer of the law sees it, they’ll be able to identify that the replica is a toy and not going to harm anyone.

Clearly the orange tip, which is a federal requirement, was missing. I doubt the cops would have fired enough rounds to hit their target at a minimum of 8 times if they didn’t feel the weapon was real.

You can focus on whatever you want. It’s irrelevant. Orange plug = Kid alive. Removal of this plug = Kid shot by police.

Now, if this company is making these replicas without ANY indicator of it being a toy whatsoever, that’s a different story. The company should 100% be held accountable if that’s the case… but somehow, I doubt it is. And instead of answering my question, REPEATEDLY, about this orange plug, you just keep answering with ‘so what’, ‘it doesn’t matter’, etc. Does this company make these toys with the orange indicators or not?

That is your convenient take on this tragedy and it supports the needs of the gun industry to maintain their profit – not the rights of the people to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is the typical rhetoric for the gun lobby. You are only repeating it here.

Orange plug or not the replica toy guns are too dangerous to be produced and sold to children. If that somehow reduces the income for the industry, I do not care.

I assure you, I have nothing to do with the gun lobby, nor do I care about their profitability or imminent failure. You want life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? You need to allow people the freedom of choice, it’s really that simple. We have the right to have weapons to protect ourselves, and the initial reason for this ‘right’ was so we could protect ourselves from the government in case they decided to utilize their power via force instead of a democracy.

I don’t own a gun nor will I ever own a gun… because I personally don’t care to do so. I however DO support the rights of responsible citizens to own them to protect themselves. You take the guns out of the hands of RESPONSIBLE CITIZENS, and you leave them more at risk for the people who are NOT responsible and decide to acquire them ILLEGALLY. You want to use phrasing like ‘rampant’… well, take guns out of peoples homes and you’ll see crime get pretty rampant, fairly quick.

So the federal government requires that toy companies put distinguishing characteristics on their “TOYS” and the owner of said toy modifies the features that the Fed Govt has determined will keep them safe when playing with it, the toy company should be liable? You have lost your mind!!!

and my point was more about personal responsibility. we all need to take a little, some a little more than others. But you know that, you just chose to ignore that part of my comments. True colors. thank you

No. Your point is just the opposite of personal responsibility. My point is that these replica toy guns should not be marketed to children and the same thing goes for the cartoonish real guns made by Cricket and other companies. If the companies will not be responsible enough to stop the marketing of these dangerous products to children on their own volition, the people of this country will demand that it be done by law. That is what sanity looks like. It seems you are not acquainted.

It would be helpful if you would read my statement prior to posting your sarcasm. I said that if the manufacturers do not act responsibly the people will do it legislatively. Do you finally understand?

How can such a conversation not focus on the Movie and Television Industry that teaches kids the wrong use of guns and how it can make them like their heroes, stalone etc. So phoney to point at the NRA and then turn on CSI or go up the street to gun infested huma killing movie isn’t it? Do they have violent gun toting movies at the new Saratoga Cinema that we can protest?

Yeah right. Anything but the gun. Alcohol, cars, feet, baseball bats, knives and now entertainment. It seems like the radicals who are against any form of gun control would like it if we would just look anywhere else. Like at the movies. Guns don’t kill people. Video games kill people. Although I agree that some in the entertainment businesses are profiting from violence in their films etc., it is nothing compared to the profits being made by the weapons industry from real gun violence and the resulting flood of paranoia panic sales of guns and ammo.

There is no question that today the American culture is heavily influenced by guns from many directions. Movies in the 1950s and 1960s displayed violence from previous eras that allowed for a disconnect to the viewers. Young men with a grudge against society did not run out and buy a pair of six shooters and attack a group of people in the 1950s and 1960s. Violence in movies today portrays contemporary situations with weapons that at many times appear like guns that can be purchased throughout the U.S. There continues to be a controversy over how much of an impact the movie and TV industry has on gun violence. Common sense would suggest that it has some effect. I see a bigger issue with the video games, and although there is not a clear consensus on the impact of video games, there seems to be a common thread with an association between mass shooters and violent video games.

However, I agree with Lawrence that the NRA clearly establishes a connection to gun violence when they influence the political process and prevent the enactment of laws that would limit the access of firearms to criminals, the mentally ill, and gun traffickers.

I will say it again, no singular approach to the prevention gun violence is mutually exclusive. But as Lawrence says, this is a gun blog, and guns are used in over 70% of homicides.

It is impossible to legislate the imagination. If we were to get rid of violent media the first book to go would be the Bible. However it is imperative to legislate the tools used to actually kill people and that is what this blog is about.

Lawrence
I agree with you concerning legislation of the “imagination”. Both the movie and television industry have some level of oversight. I am just concerned with the common connection that we hear after mass shootings with violent video games. This is more complicated than some of the other issues such as prohibiting the private sale of guns to criminals, or even addressing the sale of realistic toy guns.

WoodHolly:
I did not allow my children to watch violent movies. I did not allow MTV, or wrestling to be on in our home. I found the messages mixed sex with violence, and the objectification of women. I did not allow violent cartoons. And WoodHolly, they all turned out to be fine adults.

But you are missing the point with Mr. Whites blog article. I think rather than calling people hypocrites, you may want go back and read the article, and think for a few minutes.

Guns are unique in that I DO NOT GET TO CHOOSE WHO SHOOTS MY KIDS, or GRANDCHILDREN. Your NRA crams guns down our throats, whether we like it or not. How many guns would satisfy your obsession? We have 300,000,000 now. HOW MANY MORE DO YOU WANT pumped into our society, WoodHolly?

I did allow SOME video games. In fact that is how two of them learned how to fly real airplanes. On a flight simulator video game. And my grandchildren enjoy playing ‘Rock Band’ with us. They are pretty good on the drums.

Studies have shown that video games can help improve hand – eye coordination and teach us something too. However some of them are just ghastly and irresponsible. If offered to work on them I would refuse. However unlike guns they are not used to outright kill people so in my opinion they are at a different level in this conversation.

Yes, guns are on a different level. You cannot kill with a video game. But you can become desensitized to human suffering. Perhaps WoodHolly plays violent video games? Who knows? Perhaps WoodHolly feels that the ‘Zombie Targets’ that bleed when shot, is a healthy thing to sell at NRA sponsored gun fairs? Again, who knows.

WoodHolly is another fly by night NRA obsessed messenger, a one sided thinker. Blind as a bat.

I think this would be an interesting conversation to have in a completely dedicated blog post, instead of here. It’s an interesting debate and deserves its own ‘area’ to do so.

Personally, I don’t think movies or games are responsible for violence. The people who end up acting on their terrible, violent thoughts obviously have some sort of problems, mental or emotional. They may have been bullied as a child to no end. Their parents may not have had an active part in their lives – They may have been allowed to do whatever they wanted, with no accountability for anything they’ve done.

Most people will watch a film or play a game and experience an escape… just a lot of fun by enjoying something that’s pure fantasy. I play GTA, but am I going to run amok and cause chaos? Of course not. I laughed at The Hangover, but I have no desire to partake in such crazy shenannigans. I had a love/hate relationship with the likes of Tony Soprano, but that doesn’t mean I wanted to pursue a ‘career’ in organized crime.

And games aren’t just mindless ‘point and click and destroy’ experiences anymore… sure, some are, but major game franchises – including GTA – are now becoming far more story oriented. Some of these games actually offer more cinematic experiences than films do…

Tony B and Lawrence, Federal law states that any toy manufacturer that produces a toy gun, including the new air soft guns, must have an orange tip on the barrel a minimum of 6mm.

the law is in place to protect children, the tip was removed by someone, either the owner or his friend. this is a horrific tragedy, a 13 year old killed, no one wants to read about it or live it. But when safe guards are in place and said safeguards are removed, you can no longer blame the manufacturer. For instance if my car requires brakes to pass inspection, after the inspection, I remove the brake pads and go for a drive is BMW or the inspection station liable for the deadly results?

Let me repeat it is a tragedy, but Lawrence, you always look at the extremes when you write your blog and not the potentially hundreds or thousands of little boys that go outside and play army every day that are safer.

At first I was going to stay out of this fracas, as the toy gun situation seemed to be extremely rare. On further review, the Justice Department suggests that toy guns are involved in 200+ incidents with law enforcement each year, with the vast majority ending, fortunately, without tragedy. The comparison of an adult removing the brake pads from a car, with a child removing the orange tip from a toy gun is a poor example. The child obviously had no idea of the possible repercussions of his actions. I expect any adult capable of removing brake pads would understand the consequences.

There is clearly a connection between this tragedy and the gun culture in America. I admittedly saw the toy gun situation as something less than it may actually be. I grew up having dozens of toy guns. My grandson is only allowed to have water pistols that are brightly colored, which is an indication of our society today, especially when his father is a police officer. Our world is changing everyday when law enforcement officers need to be concerned whether or not an individual is carrying a real weapon or a realistic toy.

Again, you can’t really say ‘this is bad’ because certain people make bad choices.

Again, there’s the alcohol example. There are plenty of people who use this RESPONSIBLY by doing it at home and not getting behind the wheel, or going to a party and spending the night or lining up a ride beforehand. Alcohol shouldn’t be banned because certain people are too stupid to listen to all the warnings. A lack of common sense is the culprit in deaths related to alcohol. Other people even drink themselves to death, despite knowing the risk of consuming so much alcohol. So is alcohol to blame, or is it the idiot who drank so much of it?

You can’t cling to the notion that the issue you’re discussing is entirely different from the alcohol example. Strip away the fat and it all comes down to the same thing – There are harmful things in our society, harmful things that not only have the chance to hurt ourselves, but other people as well. Do we blame the items, or do we blame the people who make bad decisions? This is more or less the same idea, only the means are different.

And one more thing… when it comes to children harming their friends or themselves because they have ACCESS they SHOULDN’T have… that means that there’s been a lack of education by the parents anyway.

When I was a kid (again, I don’t own a gun now, but I am not against them), the first thing anybody EVER taught me before I ever touched a rifle was that I should never… EVER point it at anyone. That’s #1 as far as safety is concerned, and they even came up with a lame, but effective saying so I would never forget: “Safety first, never last. Be part of the future, not the past.”

It doesn’t take much to put an idea in someone’s head that will stick, especially a child.

You clearly do not have children. Particularly young boys are driven to guns which is why so many more of them are involved in shootings. A test was done with a group of well educated and trained young boys who were placed in a room with a hidden and inoperable hand gun. Almost every boy that found the gun pulled the trigger. Your theory fell apart in a few minutes.

Second, please link to these studios. I would also like to know what ‘education’ they had. Were they educated on guns themselves? Were they trained to handle them appropriately? There’s a lot of questions in the air here. Provide a link so I can see the study for myself.

But that’s still ignoring the facts: If kids don’t have access to the guns, they can’t use them. Responsible parents are going to lock up the weapon AND the ammunition, so neither can be used. Access is the problem in pretty much everything you’ve tried to warn about as far as gun control overall is concerned. The blame falls on the parents for failing to do what they were SUPPOSED to do.

Thank you. That’s an interesting article, although it still leaves certain facts about the control of the study up in the air, such as just how many of them were truly exposed and informed in a proper manner.

Still, the article does support another thing I’ve been saying: That access is a clear problem, and access is something that’s important to responsible gun owners…

The message in the study is clear. There is only ambiguity if it helps sell more guns. That is the only reason to speak out against positive control of this dangerous product in our society. And that includes toy replica guns.

Michael Zupan said:
“It doesn’t take much to put an idea in someone’s head that will stick, especially a child.”

I agree. So why do you advocate purchasing REAL guns for CHILDREN? And why, with 300,000,000 guns in circulation, do you want MORE?

You just don’t get it. Lots of us DO. And we are sick of the Michael Zupans in the world. “We don’t have a gun problem”…..REALLY? Trot off and read the facts. Try another site besides the NRA. Maybe you’ll learn something. Doubt it.

Eddy Eagle is Joe Camel. Knock off the bull. Thank you.

I BLAME YOU FOR EVERY SHOOTING. You defend our out of control gun culture. You are complicit in every death.

I normally do not step in like this but I think I will here this time.

I believe that what Tony expressing is a heartfelt frustration at the climbing number of people being killed or wounded by guns and the laws are not changing fast enough to save more. The point that is being made is a good one. If you are standing in the way of common sense controls for guns you are allowing the slaughter to continue. Gun rights over human rights. For that reason it is time that more of us made a choice to speak out and demand a change. 90% is not enough when the 10% are in control by power of the enormously wealthy gun lobby.

Yes. Change is here. No doubt about it. It is happening as we speak. However for people like Tony it is not fast enough and if Tony finds out you are one of the ones who support blocking progress on gun control you will hear about it.

We have been discussing data, and polls, and numbers, and facts for MONTHS. Cross checking CDC data with The Brady Campaign, LEO Memorial Fund, FBI stats, suicide rates, self defense numbers re the use of firearms, gun therapy, the number of children killed in urban areas vs rural areas. 80% success rate in suicide when a firearm is used, compared to 20% when a lethal overdose is the method. We’ve discussed mental illness, the homicide rates of the US vs the top 20 wealthiest countries. We’ve explored racial bias, regional attitudes, gun storage, child safety locks………..terrorism, the Constitution, adapting AR-15s to make them compliant to NYS law, mass shootings, security in schools, the political climate, alcohol and firearms….SCOTUS, Heller, the founding fathers, the gun lobby, Internet weapons sales, straw sales, confiscation fears, panic buying, registration, AND THE VICTIMS OF GUN VIOLENCE……..etc…..so maybe you can start by reading some of that before making an unsubstantiated claim that ‘We don’t have a gun problem.’

Read Mr. Whites posts and links. Read LUTFs stats, and the books he has suggested. ‘Gun Fire’. Look into the ‘knee-jerk’ claim by comparing current legislation to the GCA of 1968, and the changes to the law in the GCA of 1986.

I suggest you do some research instead of making a claim as wild as “We have no gun problem.”

Correction: The title of one of the books LUTF suggested was ‘Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America’.
Adam Winkler (Author)

Available on Amazon.

Michael Zupan, LUTF has read hundreds of books and articles and has shared his knowledge with us for months. I don’t agree with everything he offers, but I respect his opinions.

You were attempting to shut down this discussion by unloading false information we have heard 7,379 times before. Starting off with, “We don’t have a gun problem.”

You are not a gun owner. You are not affiliated with the NRA, or any lobby group. You are just a nice guy who wants to share his opinion with us dim wits, who you assume have not given thought to, OR READ, or discussed every argument you’ve attempted to put forward.

Perhaps I was harsh to blame you for the consequences brought about by blocking any sensible gun regulations. Perhaps you are just a guy who likes to hear himself talk. Like Albert said, “Looks like we have another wordsmith.”

I actually made a statement somewhere in all of these posts that I retracted some of what I earlier said:

The fact that background checks are not required for everyone in every state IS a problem, and I agree with that. I am in favor of background checks for everyone… for mental background checks to be a part of that as well. What else can we do? What would you propose? But anyway, I just need to make it clear where I stand. I was wrong in regards to not having a gun problem. Lack of background checks is a major problem.

I still disagree with the fact that guns kill people however. People who own guns should know better than to keep weapons and ammo available, because it should all be under lock and key. Acess is still a major problem, and that becomes an accountability issue. Some people are more responsible than others, unfortunately.

Guns are used in shootings. The number of Americans shot and killed in America since 1968 is greater than all the deaths of all of our troops who have ever died in battle for our country all the way back to the revolution. That is the situation I am seeking to effect with this blog.

WE HAVE GUN CONTROL, lol. It’s common sense you want to have legislated, and I’m sorry, but law isn’t going to make people smarter or more responsible. People are, or they aren’t. They either abide, or they don’t.

The gun control laws clearly need to updated. That is what happened with the SAFE Act in NY State and it is very popular in spite of the hysteria on the right. It is clear that the people of NY State believe that these laws are making a difference. That is why they do not support armed chaos as the gun lobby does.

The laws NYS tried to implement in regards to guns are a farce. Limiting the amount of bullets you can hold in your magazine or limiting anything else – again – only affects the people who are responsible enough to obey the law. The criminals who have already stolen a weapon and plan to use it for crime won’t give two craps about how many bullets they keep in the magazine, or what kind of weapon they’ll have cloaked under their clothing. Whatever they want to carry and whatever and however much kind of ammunition they want… they’ll get, and we’ll be that much more defenseless.

But this idea seems to keep going right over your head – Laws affect law abiding citizens because they abide by the law… they do not affect criminals, as criminals by their very nature do not care about the law.

So explain how more regulation and legislation will change a thing in regards to criminals? Because I fail to see how that’s going to shake out in the favor of us law abiding citizens…

You keep talking about dangerous this, update that, and yet you completely refuse to actually list examples as to how that would actually work. Instead you say key phrases like ‘spewing propaganda’ and ‘lobbyists’ to sound like you know what the solution is… but you offer no actual opinion as to what needs to be done. Let’s explore this… because this should be good.

Specifically, how does gun laws actually help to protect us from criminals?

MZ
“I think the regulation we have is fine…”
I’m glad you have given your blessing, but you are unfortunately a little late to this party. Is this all opinion on your part, or do you do you have some facts that back up your contention?

For someone who is not a gun owner and claims no affiliation to the gun lobby, you seem to have a considerable emotional attachment to the debate. Right up there with Albert the Contrarian, who is a gun owner.

7 round magazine limits don’t protect us from criminals wanting to get guns. But you are in favor of them anyway. BGC and the dangerous mental health clause will help keep guns out of the hands of evil doers. The new assault weapons provision is a joke, from a crime stopping standpoint, and i’d be happy to list legal rifles and shotguns easily as potentially lethal as the previously legal ones.
In the end in a free society (this isn’t one) we rely on one another to follow the rules and respect eachothers inherent rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Certain aspects of the safe act do nothing for safety, remove property, and liberty and show an utter lack of respect for the intellect of the voting public. Maybe every bill thats so wonderful should be passed at two in the morning, no comments needed its just such wonderful legislation we have to pass it now!

The idea with the 7 round limit is not stop criminals from getting guns. It is stop criminals from having so many bullets. The SAFE Act was passed with overwhelming support from both houses and both parties. It was passed in the afternoon and signed by the governor late at night.

As far as your charge that this is not a free society what that shows me is how darn spoiled you really are.

Perhaps, LUTF, if you bothered to read Mr. Zupan’s response, and spent just a little time pondering his questions, your answers could save him, me and many others from wandering around in the darkness trying to figure out just exactly, “Specifically, how does gun laws actually help to protect us from criminals?”

Perhaps, if you were able to muster some actually logical answers to that question, I wouldn’t need to be such a contrarian.

The logical common sense answers to those question have posted over and again on this blog with data and research to back them up. Just because you prefer to deny them does not make the answer less valid.

Albert
I have spent months answering questions and countering other people’s opinions on this forum. His arguments border on the most simplistic of objections and indicate a lack of familiarity on the intricacies of gun regulations. Pardon my skepticism, but MZ appears to have more than a passing interest in this debate. I don’t have the time or the patience to start these discussions from scratch, and that appears to be intention in this case.

Unless I am mistaken, it was you that suggested that perhaps there may indeed be some common ground on the gun debate after I explained how BGCs on private sales would eventually reduce the inventory of illegal guns. I will be glad to discuss specifics on gun regulation with you or anyone else, but when the conversation starts with comments that suggest there is no need to for any new controls while 33 states allow the unhindered sale of guns to criminals, there will no agreement.

Your statistics are only supported if we’re to assume that everyone is going to follow the new laws that are implemented.

“Gun laws do not protect us from criminals. They protect us from criminals getting guns.”

No, they don’t. Criminals acquire their weapons ILLEGALLY. They get stolen, serial numbers get filed off, etc. If they’re already willing to go that far to carry a firearm, they’re certainly not going to care about new legislation. You have yet to counter this fact with anything meaningful. You just keep referring to statistics… and I’m not downplaying the fact that crimes with guns are bad, but I’m saying that these laws do not make a difference. Again… when someone doesn’t care for the law, they’re going to acquire their weapons on the black market or steal them anyway. I’m not sure how many more times I have to explain that, but you have yet to respond with something that specifically counters that.

“The idea with the 7 round limit is not stop criminals from getting guns. It is stop criminals from having so many bullets.”

And that’s all it is – An idea. They passed some legislation… big whoop. Criminals – who are already established as members of society who are willing to BREAK THE LAW – will carry as much ammunition in their clips as possible. Again… provide some sort of logic that says otherwise.

“The SAFE Act was passed with overwhelming support from both houses and both parties. It was passed in the afternoon and signed by the governor late at night.”

If the government passed it, I guess it MUST be a good idea.

Come on…

“As far as your charge that this is not a free society what that shows me is how darn spoiled you really are.”

I’m going to reference something George Carlin said once – We don’t have many ‘rights’. All we have are a set of temporarily privilages. Anyway who watches the news – even badly – can recognize that the list of privilages is getting smaller year after year after year. ‘Rights’ are something that can’t be taken from you… yet the government finds the wiggle room to remove choice from the equation on a regular basis. Being told what to do without having an option isn’t my definition of ‘freedom’. In fact, I doubt a dictionary would support any other definition of ‘freedom’.

You seem to have a profound lack of respect for the American style of democracy. Here you mock the legislative process as if you alone should be abel to call the shots. As if the overwhelming vote in support of the SAFE Act is not relevant. Only your opinion matters. Yeah. Right. Many of us served this country to preserve our way of life. Our democracy. It P’s me off to hear someone like you who has not sacrificed anything really and in my opinion is extremely spoiled run our government down unfairly.

This anti American rhetoric seems to permeate the anti gun control group. We hear it all the time. People stockpiling their weapons for the glorious day when they overthrow our government. Even though you have not come right out and said these exact words – your meaning is clear. America, as it stands now, sucks. It is clear you have have very little respect for the law here and the American form of government to create the laws. However you have made it very clear that you do love the gun. Big whoop.

MZ 14.13
“You have yet to counter this fact with anything meaningful.”

I am a lifelong gun owner who would prefer to see gun rights exist for future generations. This will only be possible with common sense solutions to limiting gun violence. My only advocacy involves BGCs on private sales, and addressing the associated problems of gun trafficking and straw purchases. These issues must be addressed by federal regulations that require uniformity throughout the nation.

BGCs on private sales are not required in 33 states, the problem is that simple. Criminals can purchase guns from private vendors at gun shows, respond to internet ads, or even from their next door neighbor without any restrictions in the 33 states. This must end. When gun owners are held accountable for the transfer of firearms that they sell, it will limit the number of guns available for criminals to acquire. Will criminals still find ways to acquire guns? Of course, but over a period of time if the majority of law-abiding gun owners only transfer their guns to law-abiding individuals that can pass the NICS check, the inventory of illegal weapons will be reduced. You mention stolen firearms, which can never be eliminated, but they represent only a fraction of the illegal weapons in the U.S. Closely associated to the situation of illegal guns is straw purchasing. Weak laws addressing straw purchasers and a very small percentage of FFL dealers that are corrupt have allowed this practice to continue. There is considerable research available that shows the illegal guns that are confiscated in NYC, Chicago, and DC originate from states with the weakest gun regulations. This can only be addressed with uniform national regulation.

Save me the response of “criminals will always find a way….”. If that was how we viewed public safety and our public policy decisions there would be complete anarchy.

Thank you for actually responding with something meaningful. Because of your response, I can actually backtrack in my words a bit:

What you’re saying is perfectly reasonable, and thank you for avoiding overly passionate and hyperbolic responses. I agree – Background checks should always be required. I also am in support of requiring mental health information in these background checks as well. ‘Straw purchasing’ should come to an end.

Will this resolve gun violence entirely? Of course not, but that’s definitely the best – and probably only way to go. All this additional nonsense such as limiting the amount of bullets in a magazine etc, is just silly and I don’t think it’s going to do… well, anything. I still believe that ‘criminals will always find a way’, because they will… but this could lessen the degree by a bit.

I stand by a lot of what I said otherwise – Outside of that, the problem is still going to remain how each individual owner treats their weapons at home. The problem in many cases is the access, as I’ve said.

MZ
I am in complete agreement when it comes to personal responsibility. The problem we have is that accountability has continued to erode in our society everyday, unfortunately to the point where public policy must constantly address this lack of personal responsibility. An obvious example is text messaging. Most public safety issues can be addressed with minimal resistance. However, gun regulations are a different story, where the Constitution is sadly abused by many who show little responsibility in gun ownership.

We will never eliminate evil in society, but there are measures that will reduce gun violence. It has taken decades for us to get to this point, and results of sensible gun regulation will take time as well. The spike in gun sales in the past few years will translate into further tragedies, and the longer it takes to address these issues, the more the Second Amendment will be threatened.

I guess it all depends on what you consider to be ‘easy access’, which is one of those variables that will change from person to person.

I did say I’m all for having these gun show sales with no background checks coming to an end… that I was in favor of having a background check for everyone who wished to purchase a weapon, including their mental history background.

Outside of that, and the rules that say whether or not someone is capable of owning a weapon or not, I’m not sure what else you can implement that wouldn’t infringe on our rights.

The right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is our primary right. All other rights stem from it. No single industry should be able to compromise that right but the weapons industry has. Bringing that situation back into control is not an infringement on your rights. It is a process to ensure them.

You know Lawrence… I hear you. It’s one of the most simple statements you’ve made in the entirety of this debate, and also the most clear and potent.

I think we’re finally at a point where we can stop debating this, that or the other thing, and say – We’re going to have to just agree to disagree. I mean… I agree on your sentiment wholeheartedly, but when we are discussing what ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ means, I guess we’re just on opposite sides of the fence.

Many actually use that to actually mean ‘life, liberty, and guaranteed happiness’, because that’s what they actively pursue. ‘Pursuit’ of happiness means exactly that… ‘pursuit’. You have the right to go after happiness… obtaining it is still left in the cards.

We could argue that the right to take a means of defense away actually endangers our right to life and liberty, as we have no way to protect ourselves against corruption or others who choose to inflict harm upon us.

But I see what you’re saying in your last post, and it’s by far the most respectable thing I’ve read. I can see where you’re coming from there. You don’t have to agree with me and I don’t have to agree with you… but I can at least respect your sentiment.

Lawrence: “As far as your charge that this is not a free society what that shows me is how darn spoiled you really are.” -LW

What your comment shows me if an utter deference to civil liberties. Our E-mails are being read (not all or even most but some, this isn’t conjecture it’s simply fact). Police ever increasingly use DWI checkpoints, and safety checkpoints to stop motorists and interview them or look into their vehicle. In NYS police are allowed to place GPS tracking units on vehicles without warrants, the appelate court was good enough to uphold that gem. STOP AND FRISK. Our personal data is being handed over by credit card companies, phone companies, utilities etc. to the federal govt where they are stored in databases. For what purpose? I don’t know, you don’t know, the feds claim they aren’t sure what it will be used for. You are an absolute joke of a human being for saying what you said, our rights are constantly being infringed, perhaps you aren’t bothered by that because words like, Shall not be infringed have no meaning to people like you.

I am happy and proud to be an American. I feel blessed by it. In fact I feel so fortunate that spent 4 years of my life in service to my country during a war. What do I get for that? Some spoiled young man telling my I am a joke for saying our country deserves our protection not our scorn. Not much different than when I returned home during Viet Nam.

If u tolerate this ever encroaching police state like govt you missed the point. When you defend politicians regardless of party that infringe on our rights you miss the point. Issues are our future as Americans, not party boxes that we are supposed to fall into. Those party boxes are the reason we are losing freedoms, and you happenedto work for someone who is doing a marvelous job ratcheting up the anti liberty machine.

Well, for starters, you feel proud to be a part of this democracy. You have said ‘democracy’ in earlier posts, so let’s clarify what a democracy is:

It’s a government by the people and for the people, and we entrust our chosen representatives to do what’s best for us.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. They rarely listen to us. The only time they do, is when they’re afraid the outspoken are going to damage their chance at holding office next term.

There have been times in history where the popular vote is not accurately represented by the electoral votes. Also, it’s pretty clear that the government is going to do what it wants to, even if a majority of Americans are against whatever they’re trying to implement. The two party system is silly, and the electoral college only helps to ensure only one of two parties would win. If a third party actually gained the most of popular votes, what would happen? Electoral votes would support republican or democrat, and nothing else.

Our opinions don’t matter and neither do our votes. But what’s funny is that you fought for our country, and supposedly our constitution means a lot to you… yet there’s a lot of things said here which actually contradicts how important it actually is to you.

“I SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION… except for when I disagree with it…”

There’s something problematic with that, isn’t there? And I’m sorry, but as I said before – Rights are rights. A RIGHT means it’s something that cannot be taken from you… yet choices are being taken from us all the time. Government is attempting to tell us what we can eat, what we can drink, what we can see, what we can hear… and more and more restrictions are being placed on us every year. That’s not some ‘spoiled rambling’ on my part, that’s just how it is. Rights are something nobody can strip from you… but what ‘rights’ do we actually have that the government can’t take away with legislation?

And how dare you resort to more name calling… saying I’m a spoiled young man. You already resorted to making a harsh assumption earlier on, and when I called you out on it… those posts mysteriously disappeared. And here you are again. You and I can disagree… and that’s fine, but don’t you dare make assumptions about my life. Do it again, and I’m going to make a phone call to the Times Union and have a chat with them about you and your behavior here. If you aren’t able to discuss things intelligently without resorting to such low blows – something you have been guilty of twice now within the last 24 hours – then you shouldn’t be doing this in your spare time.

Anyway, it’s fine that you’re happy and proud to be an American. Despite all of our problems, it’s still the best country in the world to live in. I’ll give you that… but we’re not operating under the ideals that it was founded on. That IS a problem.

What have you ever done to make it better other than complain? What are you doing right now to make it better other than complaining? Attacks on our government coupled with and inaction is incredibly frustrating for those who actually take action and get involved. Who try to make a change.

You tell me that politicians do not listen yet I am old enough to see the trajectory of our recent history and the changes are clear and evident. Overwhelming. Powerful.

Yet many people, and I include you Michael, who enjoy our freedoms have done nothing to protect the system that provides them. Rights and freedoms are nothing unless they are protected. Our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is being destroyed by a mega weapons industry with a powerful lobby who are corrupting our government and threatening our way of life.

You support this erosion of our freedoms and rights by trying to focus our attention elsewhere. I oppose this loss of our freedoms and rights by drawing attention to the encroaching corruption and influence of the weapons industry.

Knowledge is power, and be sharing my opinions with people, I can help to identify problems so more people can be aware of them. I’m not exactly sure what you’re doing about it other than writing a blog at the moment… but then again, I don’t know what you do professionally either.

As usual Lawrence, you blame guns and the “weapons industry”. The weapons destroying us are mainly electronic, there isn’t a need to stick up a bank if you have the skill to steal someones identity. Computers, cameras, microphones, and the people who know how to use these fantastic devices in sinister ways are destroying us.

Before you jump on my last comment let me add, I am specifically talking about destroying our role in the international community, our faith in our domestic local state and federal law enforcement agencies, and a total lack of trust in congress and our executive branch. I’m not as old as you, as you have pointed out so many times. In my life time I have watched just how quickly technology has changed our society, many ways for the better, many ways for the worse. You talk about democratic activism? How about you address the points I made about our rights being stripped away?

I am willing to work to protect our way of life and our government. I deeply reset your unfair attacks against our country and I a totally unimpressed by your attitude which is all about the gun and very little about the well being of our fellow citizens.

Oh so now I’m anti government, and I don’t care about people only guns? Do you realize you have to point out what the government is doing wrong before it can be corrected? I am also not “pro gun”, I don’t advocate for all person owning guns. I do however advocate for people to have the right to chose if they are going to own a firearm or not.

I have been an activist since 1968. I hardly need to tell me what is necessary to make changes. The answer is the vote. Not the gun. It certainly is not collecting guns and preparing for over. I speak out against that. You support it with your idea that more guns is a good idea. Almost every comment you make that mentions the government is a statement that claims our govt is trying to take away your rights instead of protecting them. That is the type of radical anti govt rhetoric that is harmful to our way of life. If you wanted to make things better for the people of this country you would surely have said so by now instead of your constant harping for more gun sales and hence more profit for the industry.

Your lack of concern about individual rights, and civil liberties concern me. You loft personal attacks and ignore my individual examples of the breeches in freedoms that we are now arguing about. I am not anti govt, I am just apparently more demanding of our government then you are.

On the other hand you eager willingness to allow our right of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness to be usurped and compromised by an out of control weapons industry while the body count of victims climbs is what concerns a lot of us. The fact you constantly demean our government instead of trying to improve it is, in my opinion, and indication of a lack of pride and respect in what our country is and the great sacrifice it took to create it.

Your accusations about my feelings on our govt are off base. I love our country, and i respect our system of govt. Personally i prefer our bicameral legislature over a parliamentary system. I think it more effectively gives representation to groups that otherwise would only have a sliver of effectiveness in a european parliamentary system without many alliances. My point being I take issue with individuals and policies, not with the country or our system.
I also take issue with you basically celebrating how our government is operating, and talking about change as though any meaningful change has occured that justifies the use of the word change.
We do have change in the past 15 years, the change from the viewpoint of U.S. citizens. Many see it as acceptable for the offenses I have previously listed to occur. I see them as gross violations of civil liberties, I see them as the issues that if not addressed now will forever grow and consume rights and turn them into privileges. You can downplay my point of view, and say im anti govt, but you would be missing the mark. As I stated before, I just apparently demand the basics from my govt while you are happy to watch them slip away.
You talk about the founding fathers??? My god, read the federalist papers, or the bill of rights. I’m sure they would have been thrilled at the thought of someone knowing their location, thoughts on issues, and who they talk to and for how long. Please Lawrence, total rubbish.

Lawrence I read your blog post on the founding fathers. I was aware of the information you provide, as well as being aware of the history of the black panthers and their rights being infringed in california when they tried to openly carry arms. I don’t however understand your point? I find racist government policies, or sexist homophobic….etc, to be fundamentally un american and the exact reason I protest government forcing itself into citizens lives unnecessarily. I would sooner die in a terrorist attack then have people turn their pockets inside out to show police they aren’t a threat. There has to be a balance, when it comes to air travel I went to vegas a week ago and I thought it was respectful and reasonable. I know many don’t, but I personally didn’t have an issue. With that said I still take offense if anyone is profiled or searched or singled out without cause. I may not be a black man 16-28 years old (i’m white) but I find it gut wrenching to think there are people whose rights are being demolished because of their age, race, sex, and zipcode. Higher crime rates don’t demonstrate a justification for ignoring a basic right to move freely.
-The founding fathers were no doubt not including anyone but land owning white men when they crafted out founding documents. That in and of itself doesn’t change the basic brilliance of the documents themselves. An expansion of rights for all, not a contraction is the only direction to go in. Obviously issues with african americans ranged from basic safety to land ownership, earning the right to learn how to read and write, to voting, gun ownership, all the way to the civil rights acts of the 50’s and 60’s. The fact the founding fathers didn’t allow all citizens to exercise their civil rights doesn’t mean the right doesnt exist, to the contrary.

By the way… in regards to Lawrence’s earlier comments in regards to supporting our government and whatnot… he HAS lobbed unfair accusations about how others feel about this country. Just because I believe that our government has far exceeded the power it should have (and it has), doesn’t mean I don’t love this country. I’m so vocal about my opinions in regards to my country BECAUSE I love it so.

The founding fathers didn’t want the government to grow to the extent at which it has… they didn’t want them to have THIS much control. That’s indisputable. You can follow blindly if you want, but you don’t need to be 100% ‘in’ to support your country. Skepticism can reside where skepticism is due. There’s nothing wrong with that.

I think both are actually needed. We need a functioning government and the ability to protect ourselves. Right now it’s clear that our gun laws aren’t perfect, and they certainly need work. I think that’s a good thing to go after, not removing them from the equation.

Our government isn’t perfect either, I don’t think anyone should be so complacent in how they’re running things. Such trust is dangerous, as is evident by the thousands of federal government workers who were given a short furlough because our government couldn’t make decisions… something they get paid to do. Their power struggle – which is what that whole thing was about – actually endangered lives and American families. So, they need work as well.

There’s no simple answer such as, ‘keep this, get rid of that’. As with anything in life, there needs to be a better set of guidelines and a balance…

I don’t think it helps when you’re over emphasizing things by saying people are ‘getting slaughtered’. As someone who spent four years in the military yourself, I think you should learn to better detach one situation from another, and then better qualify your words.

Good Lord man. Do you really think there is anything else to call it? More Americans have died in America from gunfire than all of our troops from all of our wars combined – and that is just Americans shot since 1968. If that is not a slaughter I do not know what is.

Just a suggestion, Lawrence, but do you think the “slaughter” you attribute to firearm ownership, outnumbering combat casualties since, whenever, might be more accurately portrayed as just one of a group of serious problems perplexing us including a never ending Crime problem and an ongoing mental health problem regarding suicides and likely several more reasonable sub-categories?

And yet, even more people are dying every year from smoking and alcohol related deaths, but we’re not calling that ‘slaughter’ are we? “But these people are mostly doing it to themselves.” Well, we’re also not calling it mass suicide, either.

But, it’s cool. Keep ignoring many of our talking points and responding only to what you see fit. You can’t be damaging your end game by responding to something that sounds too much like common sense 😛

Lawrence, Albert is trying to make the ‘slaughter’ more palatable. He’s trying to make you understand that the issue isn’t as black and white as you’re making it out to be. You’re basically saying:

Guns + death = Guns are causing death. The End.

What Albert is trying to say, is that there are numerous issues that come into play when dealing with deaths related to guns. Mental and emotional instability are big ones. Suicide another. Crime yet another. There’s more, as well. Countless more.

But in each of these cases, there’s someone behind that gun pulling the trigger. Someone decides to use it irresponsible for whatever reason… People kill people. Guns are just the tool they use. If not guns, then knives, or axes, or whatever…

That’s the point.

When you say ‘guns kill people’, you make it sound like guns are climbing out of peoples closets or drawers and just walking around looking to self-fire on people.

Second, there are a lot of links that mention they are only ‘views’ or ‘secret history of’ or ‘lost history of’ and whatnot. A lot of what you’ve been posting isn’t really legitimate sources. Some of your sources are even heavily biased, based on the very name of the site or article they’re stemming from.

You need something a bit more concrete. Just an FYI.

That said, there are some misconstrued ideas in regards to what the founding fathers wanted. Guns were in fact part of the militia idea, and even then, it was said that there shouldn’t be more than 1 out of every 100 people with a gun.

But even still, the point of the militia was to guard against foreign invasions as WELL as problems caused by the powers of our very own country. The free militia was not to be around in times of peace and whatnot, but I think it’s safe to say that we’re most definitely at a point where our government is using their power to do whatever they want, and we’re also planted in numerous hot spots around the world. This is not a time of peace, either.

So you’re right… strict gun control… sort of. But at the same time, the reasons for having it are actually well in effect today.

I’m not sure why you feel the need to constantly make assumptions based on… well, nothing. This is a constant stumbling block for you, and really does little to help add validity to any of your views and opinions.

I don’t watch Fox News. I personally can’t stand them… or any media, for that matter. The only way to come to any conclusion about anything is to read/watch MULTIPLE sources and then begin to sift the truth from fact.

That said, Fox News are easily the most biased news network around.

You keep forgetting that I don’t affiliate with any party and think our two party system is a joke. To assume I side with Fox News just because they’re the conservative bias and you place me in the conservative camp… well, in your words, “What utter nonsense.”

What I am trying to suggest to you Lawrence, is simply that lumping a bunch of numbers together under a single cause, that is NOT directly responsible for a problem that has many sub-headings requiring individual review and specific solutions, accomplishes nothing.

There are totally different solutions required to deal with criminal firearm violence, violence caused by irrational behavior and even unnecessary damage caused by careless and inappropriate storage and management of privately owned firearms. This issue is yet another clear example of “One size fits all” as being a total illusion that rarely, if ever, provides answers.

You can’t just throw a blanket over something and hope it goes away. Blanket resolutions are hardly resolutions at all.

Albert says there are multiple issues that need to be looked at here. Lawrence says, “Nuh-uhhh.”

It’s like saying we have a health problem in this country – which we do – so we should just get rid of all fatty foods and sugar. I mean, is that a reasonable solution? That’s essentially the same logic you’re applying to the gun problem.

It seems like you can not make a comment without completely misrepresenting my position.

In fact gun control legislation is multi faceted to deal with the many situations that are presented by guns. The difference is that the issues that are being discussed are based on data and research, not just emotion.

Again I say – If you would like the same level of regulations and consumer oversight on guns as are on food – I am all for it.

What history are you refering to Lawrence? I read your blog on that, I am looking to know where you got your info from? I notice you gave someone some refrences, what refrences did you use to get that information? You could not of used all of them, so which ones state your argument. If you are going to use the issue that the Founding Fathers pratriced gun control, then you should clearly have on hand which particular refrences you used from those sources. If not, then you should not be saying things just to prove something that isn’t true.

What does that have to do with my question Lawrence? What does the dogma of the right or left have to do with giving me a source for your information. This is not a conflict of ideals discussion regarding political beliefs for which you are are now side stepping I see. I asked for a “specific” source as to which I can study to see were you get this idea of the founding fathers..period. I am not asking for your overt opinion. So again, please state the “specific” source of your argument of the founding fathers stating they did this. I am not asking for a BMW here!

How much of a historical gap do you have Bill? You do know that we were in a revolution. And that every able bodied man was either in the militia or not allowed own guns. You do know that African Americans were not allowed own guns whether they were free or not. You do know that every weapon was registered with the militia and that they were inspected at regular musters. You do know that we prevailed in the revolution. War on our own shores, in our cities and villages brought forth the necessity for a well organized resistance. Do you think the founding fathers would have allowed weapons to fall into the wrong hands? That they would not have organized every asset they had to fight against a power foe? In fact they maintained tight controls for the reason of survival. It worked.

So what part of all that confuses you Bill, or is it that you just don’t want it to be true? My bet is on the latter.

Well, Lawrence this just proves my point. Instead of defending your argument and being civilized, you act like a complete child. Instead of trying to support your argument, you would rather condescend and criticize. This is the reasons why no one takes you blog seriously. Everyone I talk to says your blog is the Sunday comics; it’s more of a comedic overtone than anything. I am glad you can’t give me a source; you just proved who is showing the most ignorance. Good job Lawrence,sad. I am sure you will delete this, I don’t care. It’s the fact you can’t have a civilized argument without throwing insults.

You have not pointed anyhting out to me but examples without sources and rambling! If you can’t prove the history, then the history is according to your opinion and not based on real events. If you can’t show the soucre to the history, then all you are doing is creating a distraction, and clearly you know how to do that.

“This is bizarre” that’s interesting. What are you talking about? I asked you for a source pertaining to where you got your information and clearly you can’t give it to me and will do anything not too. Here is a example just to help you out here, since I find it bizarre you can’t give me any. Please read carefully, heopfully me giving examples like an adult gives to a child helps this confusion on your behalf.

Lawrence says “And that every able bodied man was either in the militia or not allowed own guns”….source please?

Lawrence says “You do know that every weapon was registered with the militia and that they were inspected at regular musters”…source please?

I hope this helps, as previsouly stated, this is bizarre you can’t give me the actual source, other than you stating these statments above on your own. This tells me all along that you can’t but continue the smoke and mirrors and side steeping. Instead of trying to give history your giving disinformation and that is the true purpose of the anti-gun propaganda machine at work.

This man is pro-gun regualtion and speaks at the Brady Center. Second he believes that the right to bears arms is not for self defense but for only in the milita, I started reading and then beagn rolling my eyes. This is anti-gun propaganda based on a author that is for pro gun regualtion and would therefore include his own spin on this. I want a actual soucre that is unbiased, if this is your soucre of information, I am now under the impression that you are providing biased data based on a author’s point of view that is not condusive to actual events. Unbiased source please!

I will say this one more time. We have answered your questions with valid research and indisputable data. If you choose to remain in denial that is up to you. I am not going to post further comments from you on this topic.

Sorry, LUTF, I don’t buy your claim, “I half-expected you might have concurred with me, which is why I engaged with you in the conversation”, amymore than I accept your assessment, “Even when someone posts something sensible, you can’t even agree”, which would require someone to post something sensible.

You are the only one asking your dopey question, “Why would any law-abiding gun owner support the position that an irresponsible person who does not properly store their firearms can make their own decision on protecting themselves with a gun”, while nobody else has made any such ridiculous suggestion.

A better question might be, “Who the heck are you to decide who is, or isn’t an “irresponsible person” regarding storage and management of firearms and why should YOU be the arbiter of deciding what is, or what is not irresponsible behavior? I presume we currently provide District Attorneys and grand juries to decide when behavior becomes criminally irresponsible as well as an extensive civil court apparatus to decide civilly punisable negligence. The means to bring sufficient consequences to those ignoring the current laws is, and has been, available. Whether they’ve been appropriately brought to bear, is an entirely differnt question.

Let me get this straight, I’m the lunatic for believing we currently have more than enough regulations and guidance establishing what is reasonable and prudent practices for the storage and management of privately owned firearms. Unfortunately, we happen to share this planet with people who choose to disregard logic, resist responsibility and ignore basic safety practices, so you want to add more regulations and more burdensome restrictions on those people who are most likely complying with the existing regulations and choose to ignore all the current rules and regulations and are most likely to totally ignore any new ones as well.

Because I think your approach to solving the problem is STUPID, doesn’t mean I deny or ignore that there is a problem, it just means I think your approach is USELESS.

What facts, statistics and “cites” do you require? Stupid actually is, as stupid chooses to do, and if you have any hope in eliminating STUPID, the “corrections” should target the idiots who are not behaving logically, or responsibly rather than piling nonsense on those people who are currently following safe, rational practices.

You seem to favor punishing those who are not breaking any laws, because they are a lot easier to catch than those causing all the problems. What does that accomplish? My argument is with those who insist the solution rests with catching those people WHO ARE NOT RUNNING AWAY, rather than focus on creating solutions that will stop, those who are actually causing the problems.

I understand chasing people who are not running away is a lot easier than chasing those who are, but what’s to be accomplished by catching them?

“Let me get this straight, I’m the lunatic for believing we currently have more than enough regulations and guidance establishing what is reasonable and prudent practices for the storage and management of privately owned firearms.”

You are in the deepest form of denial if you hear about the gun carnage day in and day out and say that the current set of liberal gun laws are working.

Let’s just place ourselves in the shoes of an armed criminal looking to loot a home, with a weapon that will be used to control any given situation once inside.

They approach two houses on ‘every street USA’… one has a sign in their yard saying they’re against guns, the other house a sign that says they’re proud to be a gun owner.

Which house will the criminal choose to rob?

And furthermore, if the criminal is startled and ends up firing off a round as a result… does anyone think the armed citizen will be sorry to have supported guns? Do we feel the unarmed citizen will wish they supported guns?

Most robberies happen when people are not at home. Anti gun control district Attorney Mike McLelland and his wife Cynthia were found shot to death in their fortified home in spite of being heavily armed. The facts show us that guns do not make us safer. Just the opposite in fact.

You actually failed to answer the question, which isn’t a surprise. I said this was a question just for the fun of it… so play along.

You personally are the criminal, standing outside two homes, and you’re armed. One home advertises itself as being pro-gun while the other is vehemently against guns. If you were to rob a home, which logical conclusion would you come to as the armed thief… rob the armed house, or the unarmed house?

I don’t do fictional hypothesis. They are false and geared to illicit a pre determined response. Instead I can tell you that in my life guns have only made things worse and the data based on real events in real people’s lives backs me up.

You’re right Lawrence, and if I’m shot to death on a street while carrying concealed then I shouldn’t have been carrying? If a cop is killed wearing a bullet proof vest they shouldn’t wear them?
-You are sooo desperate to draw connections to things you don’t seem to consider the ridiculous baseless nature of what you are suggesting.
-The couple was killed in their bedroom, in their even clothes they sleep in. Their dogs were locked in their kennel. This wasn’t a gun sitting up late at night in the corner of a room waiting for someone to kick the door in. This was a man and women who felt safe enough in their home to not arm themselves at all times, unfortunately that was a miscalculation as they knew they were possibly being targeted by the same group that killed several weeks prior.
-Finally, instead of using the death of a civil servant and his wife, and suggesting circumstances that are simply not true, you could condemn the murderer or murderers and leave it alone.

Not wanting to misunderstand you, Lawrence, but are you suggesting a home owner should forgo, what he may consider reasonable security precaution, on the presumption that someone may break & enter his home, when he was not present and steal his means of protecting his possessions, along with all his possessions?

Those people who break and enter to steal firearms are criminals, who have also been known to break and enter to steal money, jewelry and all sorts of other “stuff”.

Are you suggesting we should simply stop considering our homes as appropriate storage, for any and all of the “Stuff” we choose to accumulate and use. It’s also somewhat possible, those people (the criminals) who break and enter to steal stuff, render some terrible damage to the people, who actually live in our homes, who rely on their selected resources for personal protection.

Doesn’t it make sense to simply choose the personal security resource each of us accepts the responsibility to manage appropriately, and leave all the decision making about whether to commit a crime up to the criminal, who ALWAYS accepts full responsibility for any and all consequences resulting from their decisions (whether they like to, or not)

You don’t do fictional hypothesis because you don’t like to acknowledge a truth that goes against any of the points you’re trying to make. Anyone with even a little common sense – as long as they were to answer the hypothetical situation, that is – would have chosen the house with unarmed citizens.

Albert, Lawrence doesn’t own a gun, and he thinks guns generally make people less safe, and apparently they aren’t used in self defense situations in any statistically meaningful way. You aren’t going to get an answer to your question on having a gun in the home and being prepared. He would argue you are basically inviting a robbery that will include the theft of said gun.

Lawrence, 24.5 You say the victim was one of the most prepared and armed in texas. That’s a theory that could be tested but I certainly don’t have the ability to do that.
-The point being this is a D.A. who was stalked and executed in his home by an assassin with one purpose, to kill. His situation was wildly unique as most people will not have an assassin after them but simply be in the wrong place at the wrong time. My point being I don’t know that he was all that ready, the news says there wasn’t any sign of forced entry yet he was shot in his own house. The people who burglarized my parents house were drug addicted teenagers and adults, one of the women was pregnant. My point is your point about the incident isn’t valid on its face, or valid as a general example of what people face in reality.

Don’t tell me that you do not have the ability to know what you are saying before you say it. Mr. McLelland was a well know personality in Texas and the murder of he and his wife made national news. Don’t tell me you can not figure it out.

So in your learned opinion the drug addicted teenage robber is a more typical scenario the the revenge killing with an assault rifle. As if there is a typical incident. In fact every incident is unique except for the element of the gun and that is the point.

Albert
The homeowner should forgo the gun as protection if they are not able to take reasonable precautions against theft, or if they are going to advertise their gun ownership. I personally know individuals that used to sport the red, black and gold stickers on their vehicles. Not any more more! One had tens of thousands of dollars in collectible guns stolen when they weren’t home, the other had a gun taken from a locked vehicle with the gun case out of sight.

I don’t know who that person is or was, but I do know I don’t support that assumption. I would personally be quite surprised if a burglar was on a blog to seek a name and then try to locate and rob that person. That would seem highly unlikely, second during election season it’s not always that hard to tell what homes have gun and what homes may not. Finally the NYS anti safe act signs also help if you are building a road map for a burglary spree.
-My previous comment stands, your comment about some random persons fear may be their reality and yours but it isn’t mine.

Michael Zupan wrote:
“You actually failed to answer the question, (Lawrence), which isn’t a surprise. I said this was a question just for the fun of it… so play along.”

I cannot speak for Mr. White, but I fail to see how this is fun and games. And I won’t play along. Not even if Michael Zupan says I am supposed to.

Instead, Michael Zupan, why don’t you research the number of home invasions, burglaries, and self defense stats. Find the numbers of those who used a weapon for SD during a home intrusion. Find the number of those who were not armed and then present your case.

What is it that makes you think you are so qualified to speak for and decide what so many others should do about how thay choose to protect themselves, their families and whatever possessions they may have, LUTF?

Really, where do you get off even thinking you have any business whatsoever deciding that ANY, “homeowner should forgo the gun as protection if they are not able to take reasonable precautions against theft”. Unless you are prepared to provide the necessary protection, underwrite any losses that might occur or sooth any resulting grief caused by an intrusion, wouldn’t it be more appropriate for you to keep your grand advice to yourself, unless of course, you were asked for it?

You seem to be suggesting, because a tiny percentage of firearm owners are either careless about firearm storage, or are careful, but not enough to thwart the really efficient criminals, EVERY firearm owner should abandon what they have decided is necessary for their security, simply because YOU THINK SO?

Your going to need something a lot bigger than a pair of peach baskets to carry your……ego around in.

“If you pay attention to the facts you would know that guns are used much more often to harm people than to save them.”

So are knives. A criminal can break into your house, hear your shuffling down the hall as you investigate some noise, and take a butcher knife and come after you with it. Do we now advocate that people shouldn’t own knives in their own home? Of course not. In this situation, a gun can actually help to save lives, because you wouldn’t have to wait to go toe-to-toe with the criminal… the firearm could actually stop the danger to you and your family, and at a distance where you wouldn’t have to risk your life to do so.

Fires are often used to harm people, or at the very least destroy things. We’re not banning the use of fire… no, we have to trust that people won’t resort to arson.

It just seems to me that for every bad thing you could mention, there’s good that could come of it. Nothing is black and white. Instead of opening your mind and realizing there’s truly a gray area for us all to stomp around in, you merely want to keep things as simple as, ‘guns do bad things, and that’s that’.

What were you using in the military? Butter knives? Hammers? Doubtful. What do our law enforcement members use when they feel there’s a threat? In this case – and let’s not forget what this article was originally about – a child was killed because of a very unfortunate set of circumstances… but officers typically only fire when there’s a threat or perceived threat. Their actions often help save lives.

There are many things in this world that have serious potential to ruin someone’s life… but yet, we allow the integration into our society based on a set of rules… a set of rules which basically says we agree to use such things responsibly. Unfortunately, people make bad decisions and people often get hurt as a result. Again, that person made a choice… a bad one.

You, on the other hand – someone who fought for our rights and FREEDOMS – merely want to strip free choice away from people, just because of YOUR opinion that guns are nothing but bad. How is that helping to hold up our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? You say that guns infringe on life… and we can also argue they help preserve life. It’s all in the responsibilities and how this ‘tool’ is used. You won’t even acknowledge that much however, like it or lump it, which makes your views pretty much invalid because you’re not taking enough into consideration. You have your view, you’re sticking to it and ignoring everything that doesn’t follow it to a T.

And with all this talk about getting rid of guns and whatnot, I’m sorry but… do you really trust our government to have the only weapons around? If so, you’re not just someone who disagrees in this debate… you’re actually foolish.

The thoughts of many on this subject are the same. Once you understand the dynamics of gun violence or it happens in your life it is not hard to be motivated by the same cause. To develop a national control system for guns that reduces the number of gun violence victims.

Of course we stand in opposition to a mega profitable gun industry and their highly financed lobby whose frenzied members lie about our motives constantly. Your comment is a fine example. Stating that common sense gun controls is somehow stripping away your freedoms is the type of propaganda that the industry depends upon to keep those profits coming in. It words two ways.

1) it scares the consumer into thinking the products will not be available. Buy now !!! The panic serves the sales. The wanton desecration of our constitution by the gun industry and their agents who use it as a sales gimmick should be sickening to anyone who ever served our country. It is to me.

2) the constitution provides the perfect cover for scoundrels with no morality. Wolf in sheep’s clothing. While their products kill and maim Americans, they claim almost holy protection from our constitution to escape regulation or liability. Cynical? And then some.

Any veteran who is aware of this hideous scam should speak out against it. I am happy to do. After all, President (General) Eisenhower first showed us how it is done.

BTW: If you would like the same level of regulations and controls on gun manufacturers that are in place on knife manufacturers – including consumer oversight – I am all for it. However it is very unlikely you would agree.

Albert
Even when someone posts something sensible, you can’t even agree. I half-expected you might have concurred with me, which is why I engaged with you in the conversation. Why would any law-abiding gun owner support the position that an irresponsible person who does not properly store their firearms can make their own decision on protecting themselves with a gun? Just what those of us who support gun ownership want, another irresponsible owner like the good Rep. Ellmers and her family. The much more likely scenario is that a stolen weapon will go on to be used to commit a crime against someone else, as opposed to some far-fetched fantasy of about me being personally liable because someone didn’t have a gun to protect themselves. This safe gun storage thing seems to hit a nerve with you every time.

If you paid one bit of attention to what I wrote, I never said “EVERY firearm owner should abandon what they have decided is necessary for their security”. I said “if they are not able to take reasonable precautions against theft” they should not own a gun for any reason. I stand by that statement. I have repeatedly stated on this forum that I own guns and would not hesitate to use them for self-defense in my home, but I properly store them, taking every possible precaution against theft or accidents. Am I immune from a criminal stealing any of my guns? No, but then I also don’t leave them laying out in plain sight like the incident for which I provided the link.

And you take the ego award. You have done nothing on this blog for months now except challenge people, by arming yourself with nothing more than your own distorted opinion. No facts, no statistics, nothing except the world according to Albert. You are nothing more than a contrarian who is unable to advance even one informed notion of your own, so you instead criticize others on here that are trying to add something to the discussion. Good job, you should be proud of yourself.

“BTW: If you would like the same level of regulations and controls on gun manufacturers that are in place on knife manufacturers – including consumer oversight – I am all for it. However it is very unlikely you would agree.”

You and Lawrence have made similar statements. He also said if I think guns should be as well regulated as alcochol, he would agree to that.

I could walk into my local Wal-Mart, buy a big pack of kitchen knives in a box, and take them home. No ID, no nothing. All I have to do is present my ID to prove I’m over 21 to buy alcohol. I’m not exactly sure how these ‘regulations’ support either of your comments in this respect.

I am all for background checks on everyone, including their mental health history, but what else can be done? There’s still going to be issues in regards to people ‘allowing’ access when they shouldn’t be, because some people are just irresponsible.

What Lawrence has really been tip-toeing around this entire debate, is that guns shouldn’t be part of the equation at all. He may say otherwise, by covering his opinions with ‘gun control’ language, but he doesn’t want gun control. He wants guns abolished. He would rather out government takes care of us and tells us what to do instead of allowing us the freedom to even have the option to defend ourselves.

MZ
I’m not sure who you were replying to when you said “You and Lawrence have made similar statements.” It was Lawrence that made the statement on which you were commenting.

Anyway, I’ll jump in. Lawrence and I do not agree on many facets of gun regulation, and while I may disagree with him I respect his position as he generally supports his contention. I have never got the impression that he is suggesting a total ban on firearms, which would be such an unrealistic goal that anyone supporting that goal would not be taken seriously.

Having said all of that, there are several sensible ways to address gun violence and the threat of illegal guns-

A universal federal BGC on all transfers (which you mentioned).

A federal law prohibiting straw purchases which includes stiff sentences for the purchaser and the seller.

More federal funding to fight gun trafficking which would be paid for with fees attached to gun purchases.

A mandatory firearms safety program required for gun ownership that would not only focus on the proper handling of guns, but storage, transfer and other issues relating to responsible ownership.

I have said it many times, the biggest threat to the Second Amendment is gun violence and illegal guns, NOT regulation.

A federal law prohibiting straw purchases which includes stiff sentences for the purchaser and the seller.

More federal funding to fight gun trafficking which would be paid for with fees attached to gun purchases.

A mandatory firearms safety program required for gun ownership that would not only focus on the proper handling of guns, but storage, transfer and other issues relating to responsible ownership.”

If only Lawrence was this clear and concise, perhaps we’d get somewhere in our ‘debate’.

I’m in favor of all of this.

Unfortunately, the stuff our government has tried to come up with in recent memory, hasn’t traveled down this path of common sense. Instead, the legislation they’re passing is attempting to actually restrict lawful gun owners, which is my major gripe in most conversations about gun control.

The stuff you’re offering up actually ensures a sound process for legal gun ownership, as well as the tools to learn how to use and store them properly.

By the way, the reason why I feel that Lawrence actually wants guns taken out of the equation entirely, is because he is never willing to admit that there could be some good that comes out of guns. No matter what example is provided to him, all he has to say is the equivalent of, “No, guns are bad… period.” With that mindset and how he often avoids specific questions or comments, it would seem he’s only here to present a point and fulfill his own agenda. May not be what he’s actually trying to do, but he’s not doing a great job at presenting his thoughts/ideas… something you just managed to do in a single post. Instead of presenting his own thoughts and ideas, he links to everything under the sun. I appreciate his sources of reference being included in the discussion, but they don’t speak to HIS thoughts on a personal level at all. One thing I’m not really fond of on the internet, are the ‘wikipedia scholars’, if you know what I mean.

There was nothing wrong with the federal BGC legislation except that the gun lobby did not want it. Saying the legislation was flawed is just a way to attempt to duck the reality of how 90% of Americans were denied the bill they wanted.

And here gain you post a comment totally misrepresenting what I have said. If you had bothered to research my blog you would have read where someone I know shot an intruder in their home. The story is much more complicated than a comic book view of guns and I have gone over it many times. Yet somehow you conveniently miss that and make another false charge. It is time you make a point standing on your own instead of leaning on me.

Yes the police require arms. Yes we have a right to own guns. No we do not have rights without responsibilities or restrictions. Your comments and your fallacious attacks against me indicate that you have no real desire for gun control in spite of the list you posted in your last comment.The reason I say that is that you follow it up by saying that this sort of legislation has not been offered. “The government” has not gone down this path. Well yes that legislation has been offered and gun lobby people blocked it one way or another almost every time. One of the great exceptions in NY State which is one more reason I am so happy to live here.

Thank you for sharing that you require an entire synopsis in each blog piece so you can keep up. Frankly since you are admittedly throwing charges without having any basis whatsoever the question has to be why should anyone pay any attention to anything you say? I can not think of any reason .. whatsoever.

Michael Zupan wrote:
“By the way, the reason why I feel that Lawrence actually wants guns taken out of the equation entirely, is because he is never willing to admit that there could be some good that comes out of guns.”

Lawrence – I’m sorry you feel that way. I’m saying my opinion and I’m actually engaging in a debate, here. That’s why you should listen. I have listened to all of you – like it or lump it – and it has caused me to change my tune a bit. I agree in much of the proposed regulations that were actually put forth as ideas in this thread. However, I don’t agree with other things… and you all seem to have a problem with that. I’ve brought up numerous points and even some hypothetical situations, and you all choose to ignore the things you can’t/won’t comprehend. You’re the ones participating with closed ears here – I’m the only one that’s actually shown a shift based on the conversations at hand… as far as you? That’s a different story. You won’t hear it, you won’t listen to it… nothing.

Tony – I don’t own a gun because I feel safe enough in my community. I’m not going to go in the ‘how’ or ‘why’ of it because I don’t really care to disclose any of my personal details on the internet, so you’ll have to excuse me for not offering that up. There was only one time where I felt a gun would be necessary due to threat from a mentally unstable individual. I won’t go into more details about this, but I will say that I was able to legally acquire something for my protection, and I was happy to have it. Never had to use it, fortunately.

Lawrence
The next time I waste my time in any discussion with Albert, remind me I have better things to do. The man is not even smart enough to post his replies where they belong, let alone have any concept of gun regulations. The amazing part is that he seems to be somewhat educated, but sadly just a situation where the lights are on but nobody is home.

LUTF:
I spent some time last night reading about ‘trolls’. I was unaware that some can be quite organized in causing intentional chaos. Some are paid to post comments. (Fox News was caught using this tactic). For example, college kids working for a campaign or cause, can be sophisticated enough to have multiple screen names, and IPs that cannot be tracked. They comment on multiple sites.

Anyway, the idea is for them to lure one in by making inflammatory and outrageous remarks. They are trying to provoke an emotional ‘irrational’ response. All of the advice I’ve read suggested the best course of action is to ignore them.

Often they are recognizable because they are new to a discussion, and they bring an agenda. Prepared and targeted comments, not meant to add to the discussion, rather to shut it down by discrediting the blog, and the person who runs the blog. They have targeted persons, and will only engage in discrediting whom they seek to destroy and discredit.

Others play the nice guy. “Gee, I have no agenda here. I don’t own a gun, don’t like the repugs; I have no party affiliation.”

Tony B
Thanks for the info. I believe we have had some individuals on this blog who fit the criteria you mention, and with them you know what you are up against. Others that just disagree for the sake of disagreeing are a different animal because they have no single stance and constantly change direction. When reason and fact fail to make an impression, your suggestion to ignore seems the best course of action.

Oh yes. The Trolls are here. However it is not working in their favor. They have to keep explaining why they support an inanimate object over the lives of the victims of gun violence. Troll or not – it is impossible task.

LUTF wrote:
“Others that just disagree for the sake of disagreeing are a different animal because they have no single stance and constantly change direction. When reason and fact fail to make an impression, your suggestion to ignore seems the best course of action.”

That animal can be let out to pasture. Set it free. There comes a day when the schtick becomes worn out and transparent. There is nothing to gain by engaging them. Nothing at all. They will flip and dodge, duck and cover, lie, say outlandish things…. just for a rise and to read their name.

Logic does not work. In fact, the longer the thread they can engage in, the greater their glory.

Not on my dime. Not anymore.

I want to discuss the best way to protect the public, and preserve the 2nd A.

Seems a worthy and reasonable cause.

I say keep the conversation going, and if I have to step over some doo-doo, I can do.